Jump to content

Template:Did you know nominations/Government of NCT of Delhi v. Union of India

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:50, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

DYK toolbox

Government of NCT of Delhi v. Union of India

[edit]
(
)
Building of the Supreme Court of India
Building of the Supreme Court of India
  • ... that the Supreme Court of India (building pictured) ruled in Government of NCT of Delhi v. Union of India that Delhi's lieutenant governor had no independent authority in making decisions"? Source: Rajagopal, Krishnadas; Singh, Soibam Rocky (July 4, 2018). "Lieutenant Governor bound by 'aid and advice' of elected Delhi govt., rules Supreme Court". The Hindu. New Delhi: N. Ram. ISSN 0971-751X. OCLC 13119119. Retrieved October 18, 2018. He concluded that there is no independent authority with the LG to take decisions except in matters under Article 239 or those outside the purview of the National Capital Territory (NCT) government.
  • Reviewed: I don't think it's needed now; less than five DYK credits (four three).
  • Comment: Created in userspace on 26 September 2018 and moved to mainspace on 13 October 2018.

Created by SshibumXZ (talk). Self-nominated at 00:52, 18 October 2018 (UTC).

  • Hello @SshibumXZ:, I dropped by to start a review for the nomination, but I noticed there are several maintenance tags for needed citations on the article. Do you have time to work on those, and let me know when it's okay to start a review? Thanks. Flibirigit (talk) 00:45, 27 November 2018 (UTC)


General: Article is new enough and long enough

Policy compliance:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px.
QPQ: None required.

Overall: Article moved to mainspace on October 12, therefore new enough. Article has some citation needed maintenance tags to be attended to. This appears to be the fourth nomination, therefore no QPQ is required. Flibirigit (talk) 01:09, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

@Flibirigit: I have made the appropriate changes to the article; feel free to proceed with your review. Regards, SshibumXZ (talk · contribs). 13:23, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, I will revisit this on Saturday. Sorry for the delay. Flibirigit (talk) 13:53, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
@Flibirigit: no problem; take your time with this review. SshibumXZ (talk · contribs). 00:59, 29 November 2018 (UTC); edited 01:00, 29 November 2018 (UTC) and 01:01, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
I will finish going through this later today. Sorry for the delay. Flibirigit (talk) 05:31, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
Sourcing issues have been rectified. Review still in progress. Flibirigit (talk) 15:35, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
Article appears neutral in tone, not favouring either side of the arguments. Flibirigit (talk) 17:09, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Copyvio analysis:

  • The judgment.pdf comparions returns a high value of 61% here. The large majority of highlighted areas are either proper nouns or titles, which are not violations. The others are quotations from the actual judgment which are attributed. I see no copyvio concerns on this source.
  • The remaining results from Earwig return values than 20%, which also highlight proper nouns and titles, which are not violations.

None found. Flibirigit (talk) 19:15, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

@SshibumXZ: All five hooks are cited, verified and discussed in the article. I prefer ALT2. I did make several edits to the hooks above and in the article, that I would like to nominator to check. I also noted that in the "Reactions" section, the first sentence "The supreme court's rulings were almost unanimously received favourably." should have a citation or maybe be revised. It is subjective, and likely to be challenged.

Adding my signature to the above. Flibirigit (talk) 19:57, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
@Flibirigit: I am more than fine with your changes and rectifies the single error you made. As far as the statement goes, I think one can infer easily that the judgment was well-received, but, yes, I do get that this might be in contravention with Wikipedia's policies on original research, so, I am fine with removing that line. Also, one more time, thanks for reviewing my DYK nomination for Government of NCT of Delhi v. Union of India; much appreciated, that! Regards, SshibumXZ (talk · contribs). 14:19, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
I am going away on vacation soon, and will have limited computer access for a while. I suggested a different pipe link in the reaction section. Please feel free to change, but leaving a bracketed link without a pipe is against the manual of style for links. Flibirigit (talk) 14:59, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
@Flibirigit: I think that's for disambiguations, though, like "(politician)" or "(artist)". Communist Party of India (Marxist) is a proper noun, so, piping isn't needed. Regards, SshibumXZ (talk · contribs). 16:34, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
Considering the unique naming conventions of the multiple communist parties, I will accept that. The article has completed its WP:GOCE review, and I have no further questions. Flibirigit (talk) 17:31, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
@Flibirigit: thanks! Regards, SshibumXZ (talk · contribs). 17:36, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Government_of_NCT_of_Delhi_v._Union_of_India&oldid=996114469"